There's always a game here at Atomic Power Review when I do the Carnival; I show a photo from my vast archive of useless information and ask you to guess what it is. We've been having more reports of correct guesses of late - so let's hope that keeps up. For now, What is this?
Clearly, this is a significant construction site. There is a river or stream outlet visible in the upper right quadrant of the photo and much more visibly a river along the top. We see a large concave structure of sorts being built here (click to enlarge!) and a very heavy reinforced wall next to it. I'll give a further hint: This photo is dated June 21, 1962. Yes -- of course this is nuclear related! The answer .. and much more .. to follow the Carnival.
Atomic Insights - Rod Adams
Civil Disobedience May Be Required to Overcome Illogical EPA Radiation Limits. Adams relates an exchange with an author of a recent popular article on LNT, and explains why he's adamant that the overly restrictive limits on radiation exposure be challenged and remove.
Things Worse Than Nuclear Power
Six Earth Day Facts. Facts about natural nuclear phenomena and the environment. Some of these facts might really surprise you.
Nuke Power Talk - Gail Marcus
Science and Technology - Robert Hayes
Fukushima Showed No Radiation Health Consequences: Robert Hayes examines the fact that there haven't been reports of radiation injury as a result of the March, 2011 Fukushima accident, using UNSCEAR and WHO documents as support; he also briefly discusses low-dose effects.
Diary of a Nuclear Tourist - Suzanne Hobbs Baker
Day 72: The Grand Finale. Baker rounds up her grand European nuclear tour with a visit to AREVA's fuel reprocessing facility at La Hague. Her visit is accompanied by David Hess of the World Nuclear Association. The two give us a tour of the facility, with many details and interesting photos. A grand conclusion to the series!
Yes Vermont Yankee - Meredith Angwin
Meredith has two posts this Carnival. In "Shaffer knows about spent fuel - Alvarez talks about it," she presents details of anti-nuclear activist Robert Alvarez's visit to Vermont. At the date of the first post, only anti-nuclear "experts" were invited to testify at a legislative committee event on spent fuel. Later, colleague Howard Shaffer was in fact invited to testify; this led to a second post on the subject which is entitled "Shaffer to Testify - Cheerful Wednesday."
Canadian Energy Issues - Steve Aplin
Spacex has a big goal, learned from the past, looking at the whole picture to find and prioritize opportunities, then refining key aspects of the space flight model to achieve their objective — is an approach that can make any organization more creative about cutting costs.
SpaceX approach innovates and transforms by looking at the entire business model instead of the parts. Cuts weren't just made to the physical rocket itself but to everything surrounding it — overhead, support services, development time frame, and more.
* Sustaining cost reductions over many years
* Reinvest for more innovation
Nextbigfuture looked at where the Spacex approach is being applied in energy.
Terrestrial Energy looks like it could make a radical difference in cost and supply of energy
A 300 MW thermal reactor would be the same as a 100 MW electrical reactor. Even if costs were as much proportionally as a $10 billion 1 GWe conventional nuclear reactor (the of the most expensive European or US projects.) the $1 billion cost would be recovered in about 2-4 years. Also, they indicated that there is no turbine to produce electricity since only steam is used. So the costs should be $700 million max.
This profitability means that the first 200 units should easily be profitable. Usually making more units has a improvement rate in lowering costs by a few percentage points for each later unit. The oilsand units would also generate the money to help payoff research and development costs, which would initial come from oilsand taxes and oilsand partners.
In previous design discussions about a similar Denatured Molten Salt Reactor , David LeBlanc believed that capital costs could be 25% to 50% less for a simple DMSR converter design than for modern LWRs (light water reactors).
I hope you've enjoyed the 154th Carnival and the look back at Peach Bottom 1. Thanks for visiting!
Illustrations from Will Davis collection. Source material includes "Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station" by Philadelphia Electric Company, "The Atomic Energy Deskbook," Hogerton / Reinhold Publishing 1963, and "Final Summary Report on the Peach Bottom End of Life Program," K. P. Steward - General Atomic Company July 1978.
11:20 AM Eastern 4/28/2013
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW